Search

Despite recommendations in the US National Research Action Plan on Long COVID, gender identity is rarely reported in research and surveillance used to guide public health programming and clinical care. We analyzed data from a cross-sectional study of COVID-19 in a nationwide sample of transgender and nonbinary (TNB) people (N = 2,134). Participants were surveyed between June 14, 2021 and May 1, 2022. Data were restricted to 817 participants who reported confirmed or suspected COVID-19 to estimate the prevalence of long COVID, defined as symptoms persisting for ≥ 3 months. Ten percent of participants with a history of COVID-19 reported symptom duration consistent with long COVID, ranging from 4.8% to 12.9% across gender identities. Long COVID was most common in transmasculine and nonbinary people assigned female sex at birth. There was no evidence of an association with reported hormone therapy, supporting current recommendations that prioritize gender-affirming care during treatment for long COVID. As a condition which profoundly impacts health and productivity, long COVID is likely to exacerbate existing disparities. Principles of equity demand that we reduce barriers to prevention, diagnosis, and care for long COVID, and ensure that research and surveillance are inclusive of TNB people and disaggregate findings by gender identity.

Long COVID is a chronic and often disabling illness with long-term consequences. Although progress has been made in the clinical characterization of long COVID, no approved treatments exist and disconnects between patients and researchers threaten to hinder future progress. Incorporating patients as active collaborators in long COVID research can bridge the gap and accelerate progress toward treatments and cures.

BACKGROUND: Prior case series suggest that a 5-day course of oral Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir) benefits some people with Long COVID, within and/or outside of the context of an acute reinfection. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no prior case series of people with Long COVID who have attempted longer courses of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. METHODS: We documented a case series of 13 individuals with Long COVID who initiated extended courses (>5 days; range: 7.5-30 days) of oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir outside (n=11) of and within (n=2) the context of an acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants reported on symptoms and health experiences before, during, and after their use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. RESULTS: Among those who took a long course of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir outside of the context of an acute infection, some experienced a meaningful reduction in symptoms, although not all benefits persisted; others experienced no effect on symptoms. One participant reported intense stomach pain that precluded her from continuing her course. Among the two participants who took a long course of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir within the context of an acute reinfection, both eventually returned to their pre-re-infection baseline. DISCUSSION: Long courses of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir may have meaningful benefits for some people with Long COVID but not others. We encourage researchers to study who, how, and why nirmatrelvir/ritonavir benefits some and what course length is most effective, with the goal of informing clinical recommendations for using nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and/or other antivirals as a potential treatment for Long COVID.

Background: Prior case series suggest that a 5-day course of oral Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir) benefits some people with Long COVID, within and/or outside of the context of an acute reinfection. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no prior case series of people with Long COVID who have attempted longer courses of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir., Methods: We documented a case series of 13 individuals with Long COVID who initiated extended courses (>5 days; range: 7.5-30 days) of oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir outside (n=11) of and within (n=2) the context of an acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants reported on symptoms and health experiences before, during, and after their use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir., Results: Among those who took a long course of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir outside of the context of an acute infection, some experienced a meaningful reduction in symptoms, although not all benefits persisted; others experienced no effect on symptoms. One participant reported intense stomach pain that precluded her from continuing her course. Among the two participants who took a long course of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir within the context of an acute reinfection, both eventually returned to their pre-re-infection baseline., Discussion: Long courses of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir may have meaningful benefits for some people with Long COVID but not others. We encourage researchers to study who, how, and why nirmatrelvir/ritonavir benefits some and what course length is most effective, with the goal of informing clinical recommendations for using nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and/or other antivirals as a potential treatment for Long COVID., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest to declare: Dr. Peluso has served as a consultant for Gilead Sciences and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Background: Neurosurgical training is changing globally. Reduced working hours and training opportunities, increased patient safety expectations, and the impact of COVID-19 have reduced operative exposure. Benchtop simulators enable trainees to develop surgical skills in a controlled environment. We aim to validate a high-fidelity simulator model (RetrosigmoidBox, UpSurgeOn) for the retrosigmoid approach to the cerebellopontine angle (CPA)., Methods: Novice and expert Neurosurgeons and Ear, Nose, and Throat surgeons performed a surgical task using the model - identification of the trigeminal nerve. Experts completed a post-task questionnaire examining face and content validity. Construct validity was assessed through scoring of operative videos employing Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) and a novel Task-Specific Outcome Measure score., Results: Fifteen novice and five expert participants were recruited. Forty percent of experts agreed or strongly agreed that the brain tissue looked real. Experts unanimously agreed that the RetrosigmoidBox was appropriate for teaching. Statistically significant differences were noted in task performance between novices and experts, demonstrating construct validity. Median total OSATS score was 14/25 (IQR 10-19) for novices and 22/25 (IQR 20-22) for experts ( p  < 0.05). Median Task-Specific Outcome Measure score was 10/20 (IQR 7-17) for novices compared to 19/20 (IQR 18.5-19.5) for experts ( p  < 0.05)., Conclusion: The RetrosigmoidBox benchtop simulator has a high degree of content and construct validity and moderate face validity. The changing landscape of neurosurgical training mean that simulators are likely to become increasingly important in the delivery of high-quality education. We demonstrate the validity of a Task-Specific Outcome Measure score for performance assessment of a simulated approach to the CPA., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: FN is the founder and CEO of UpSurgeOn. We acknowledge that this presents a conflict of interest, though confirm that the author's role was limited to manuscript review. We confirm that publication is original research, and is not a commercial advertisement., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Background and Objectives: In recent decades, the rise of endovascular management of aneurysms has led to a significant decline in operative training for surgical aneurysm clipping. Simulation has the potential to bridge this gap and benchtop synthetic simulators aim to combine the best of both anatomical realism and haptic feedback. The aim of this study was to validate a synthetic benchtop simulator for aneurysm clipping (AneurysmBox, UpSurgeOn)., Methods: Expert and novice surgeons from multiple neurosurgical centres were asked to clip a terminal internal carotid artery aneurysm using the AneurysmBox. Face and content validity were evaluated using Likert scales by asking experts to complete a post-task questionnaire. Construct validity was evaluated by comparing expert and novice performance using the modified Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (mOSATS), developing a curriculum-derived assessment of Specific Technical Skills (STS), and measuring the forces exerted using a force-sensitive glove., Results: Ten experts and eighteen novices completed the task. Most experts agreed that the brain looked realistic (8/10), but far fewer agreed that the brain felt realistic (2/10). Half the expert participants (5/10) agreed that the aneurysm clip application task was realistic. When compared to novices, experts had a significantly higher median mOSATS (27 vs. 14.5; p  < 0.01) and STS score (18 vs. 9; p  < 0.01); the STS score was strongly correlated with the previously validated mOSATS score ( p  < 0.01). Overall, there was a trend towards experts exerting a lower median force than novices, however, these differences were not statistically significant (3.8 N vs. 4.0 N; p  = 0.77). Suggested improvements for the model included reduced stiffness and the addition of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and arachnoid mater., Conclusion: At present, the AneurysmBox has equivocal face and content validity, and future versions may benefit from materials that allow for improved haptic feedback. Nonetheless, it has good construct validity, suggesting it is a promising adjunct to training., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2023 Ahmed, Muirhead, Williams, Bagchi, Datta, Gupta, Salvadores Fernandez, Funnell, Hanrahan, Davids, Grover, Tiwari, Murphy and Marcus.)